Case C-503/07 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 Fels-Werke GmbH, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU environmental policy, European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/15

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy
w Jaworznie (Republic of Poland)) — Piotr Kawala v
Gmina Miasta Jaworzna

Appeal brought on 3 April 2007 by Jean Yves Sellier
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2007 in Case T-276/06
Sellier v Commission

(Case C-134/07) (1)

subparagraph of Article 104(3) of

the Rules of
(First
Procedure — Higher national
levy for a product imported
from another Member State than for a similar product
purchased in the relevant Member State — First paragraph of
Article 90 EC — Charge on first registration affecting
imported second-hand motor vehicles)

(Case C-191/07 P)

(2008/C 64/23)

Language of the case: French

(2008/C 64/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie

Partie to the main proceedings

Applicant: Piotr Kawala

Defendant: Gmina Miasta Jaworzna

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w
Jaworznie — Interpretation of Article 90 EC — Charge levied
for the issue of a vehicle registration certificate at the time of
the vehicle's first registration in the Member State, the amount
of which is significantly greater than that charged for obtaining
a duplicate copy of a vehicle registration certificate — Principle
in light of competition
of neutrality of domestic charges
between goods already on the national market and imported
goods

Operative part of the order

The first paragraph of Article 90 EC must be interpreted as precluding
a charge, such as that provided for in Paragraph 1(1) of the Regu-
lation of the Polish Minister for Infrastructure of 28 July 2003, on
the amount of the charge for a vehicle registration certificate which, in
practice,
is levied on the first registration of a second-hand motor
vehicle imported from another Member State and not levied on the
purchase of a second-hand vehicle in Poland in so far as the latter is
already registered there.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

Appellant: Jean Yves Sellier (represented by: J.Y. Leeman, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

By order of 18 September 2007, the Court of Justice (Sixth
Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Sellier to bear
his own costs.

Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by Saint-Gobain
Glass Deutschland GmbH against the order delivered by
the Court of
(Third Chamber) on
Instance
11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 Fels-Werke GmbH,
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, Spenner-Zement
the European
GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of

First

Communities

(Case C-503/07 P)

(2008/C 64/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Saint-Gobain Deutschland GmbH (represented by:
H. Posser and S. Altenschmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties
Zement GmbH & Co. KG, Commission of
Communities

to the proceedings: Fels-Werke GmbH, Spenner-
the European

C 64/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Form of order sought

— Annul the order of the Third Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 (Fels-Werke
and Others v Commission of the European Communities) in so
far as it concerns the appellant;

— annul Article 1.2 of

the Commission's Decision of
29 November 2006 on the national plan for the allocation
of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Germany
pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council (document number unpublished),
insofar as it declares the allocation guarantees in respect of
the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's
national allocation plan under
the heading ‘Allocations
under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007’ to be incompatible
with Directive 2003/87/EC;

— annul Article 2.2 of that decision insofar as it issues to the
Federal Republic of Germany instructions for the application
of the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action
period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allo-
cation plan under the heading ‘Allocations under Paragraph
8 of the ZuG 2007’ and in so doing also requires the appli-
cation of the same performance factor as for other compar-
able existing installations;

— in the alternative, annul the order referred to in the first
indent above and refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the contested order the Court of First Instance ruled that the
appellant was not
individually concerned and consequently
dismissed as inadmissible its action for annulment of parts of
the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006 on the plan
notified by Germany for the allocation of greenhouse gas emis-
sion allowances.

In support of its appeal the appellant claims that the procedural
law which operates in its interests and material Community law,
namely the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, have been
infringed.

the Court of First

First,
Instance infringed the fundamental
rights to a fair hearing and to be heard. It reasoned its finding
that the appellant was not individually concerned primarily on
the basis that it did not prove that it was a member, as claimed,
of a closed class of operators and, in particular, on the basis that
it did not submit a list of operators which fall within the appli-
cation of Paragraph 8(1) of the ZUG 2007. However, at no
point in the proceedings did the Court of First Instance request

submission of a list of operators concerned by the allocation
guarantee. The relevance of the submission of such a list was
also not apparent to the applicant for any other reason since the
specific and closed nature of the circle of operators benefiting
from the allocation guarantee is already apparent
from the
mandatory legal structure of
the ZUG 2007, as submitted
before the Court of First Instance. Furthermore, in requesting
the submission of such a list, the Court of First Instance is
asking the appellant to do something which it is not actually in
a position to do.

Second, the Court of First Instance infringed the fourth para-
graph of Article 230 EC in that it wrongly found that the appli-
cant was not individually concerned. The group of persons, to
whom the contested decision applies,
is not only — in the
words of the Court — ‘more or less precisely’ determined, but is
also conclusively defined by operation of law as a result of past
events and it is not conceivable how it may be expanded. As
regards the operators concerned by the allocation guarantee in
Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007, the contested decision could,
furthermore, also be viewed as a bundle of individual decisions
since the continued application of the allocation guarantee has
been denied to each and every one of those operators.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
Social No 30 (Madrid) lodged on 3 December 2007 —
Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho v Instituto
Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General
de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo SA

(Case C-537/07)

(2008/C 64/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 30, Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho

Defendants:
Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo SA

Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

(INSS),